Ambleside County Court Ambleside Lakes Herald December 17, 1881 Thursday before T.H. INGHAM at the Mechanics Institute, Ambleside. Solicitors in attendance: J.T. BOWNASS, Windermere; F.W. WATSON, Kendal; H. DOBSON, Bowness and Kendal; R.F. THOMPSON, Kendal; W. TILLY, Lancaster; W.H. HEELIS, Ambleside and Hawkshead. Dr. TENNANT vs Thomas MOOR F.W. WATSON for the plaintiff. Plaintiff a doctor practising at Kendal. Defendant a collector residing at Staveley. The claim was for £2 2s 6d money alleged to have been received on behalf of plaintiff. Withdrawn, leave being granted for re-entry. J. TAYLOR vs T. GIBSON Mr. DOBSON applied for permission for the case of J. TAYLOR v. T. GIBSON to be re-heard. At the last court plaintiff sought to recover £5 10s, for goods sold, also £7 10s for unsold goods. The application was made because of the verdict being against the weight of evidence. Granted. Jury sworn in: John DOVE, Braithwaite HAWKRIGG, Charles HORRAX, Arthur JACKSON, G.N. LEIGHTON, junr. Charles BLADES , timber merchant vs Mrs. BARROW, grocer, Ambleside Mr. TILLY for plaintiff Mr. WATSON for defendant. Mr. TILLY, in opening the case, remarked that this was an action brought by Charles BLADES, a timber merchant, against Mrs. BARROW, grocer Ambleside to recover £35 which was paid to her by a man named HARRISON. HARRISON was in business as a joiner at Ambleside, and in April last, found himself in difficulties and filed his petition for liquidation. When a man filed, it was only fair and reasonable to the other creditors that all should be treated alike and not immediately before filing to pay his money to one or two particular persons by preferment. Any payment of this kind was called "fraudulent preference". In the present instance Wm. HARRISON on 21st April signed a petition for liquidation, and five days previously the sum sought for recovery was paid to Mrs. BARROW. On the 15th of April, he seemed to have disposed of his stock in trade and business for a matter of £90 or £95, and on the 16th, the very day after, he paid her £35. About the same time £45 was paid to HARRISON's wife's aunt, Mrs. MILWARD, who however returned the money. On the 21st April, it was shown that HARRISON owed his creditors £191 9s 6d, and he had only left about £30 to cover his liabilities. Mr. W. HARRISON, who had been subpoenaed, said that when he left Ambleside he kept the Druid's Hotel, Penrith, but had now left and resided in Scotland Road, Penrith. He filed his petition on the 22nd April of the present year, and signed it the day previously. He could not exactly say how long the business had been sold before filing. The business realised £90 odd. He paid money to Mrs. BARROW and Mrs. MILWARD - £35 to the former and £50 to the latter. At the time he paid Mr. FLEMING £7. There were in all 22 creditors. The Judge asked witness why he paid these creditors. Witness: They had been my supporters in business. I could go at times and borrow money. Questioned by Mr. TILLY: Mrs. BARROW is an old friend of mine and Mrs. MILWARD is my wife's aunt. The latter returned the money but I don't know who to. Cross examined by Mr. WATSON: Mrs. BARROW is a poor woman, and I formerly lodged with her. I borrowed £10 from her in 1877, and afterwards £25. I was a little indebted to her for board and lodgings. The money she lent me was withdrawn out of a Co-operative Society. I promised to pay her good interest - 5 per cent. Some months previous to giving her the large payment, I gave her £4, which reduced the balance to £35. I borrowed the £35 from her when I went into business. Mrs. Barrow only asked me once to pay the money back, when I payed her an instalment of £4. She did not come to press me for payment about Candlemas. Eight or ten days before I filed my petition I saw her, and simply said that I should be able to pay her some money before long. I ventured this statement without her asking me for money; but afterwards she said that she was meaning to ask me for payment as she had two travellers to meet. This was the only time I was asked for money by Mrs. BARROW. I did not tell her nor could she have the least suspicion that I was going wrong. I could not say that when I gave her the £4 I promised the balance shortly afterwards, but I might have done. At the time I paid Mrs. BARROW several creditors were pressing me for payment. There were no writs out. I borrowed about £1 from Mrs. BARROW at the time I got married. Mr. FLEMING, who is an architect, was not pressing me at the time for payment. Mrs. BARROW was called for examination and stated that she had pressed HARRISON for payment. The Judge said that the jury should look into the circumstances. HARRISON, just previous to filing, sold his business for £90, with which he paid two creditors, one £35 and the other £50, leaving the other creditors to be content with 3s in the £. It did not matter, as regarded the merits of the case, whether Mrs. BARROW knew anything of the liquidation or not. Mr. WATSON used the term "diligent creditor", but they had had no evidence of pressure for payment in the ordinary and accepted sense of the term. Besides a debtor should divide his money fairly. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the money to be returned. David Leverton